Not sure if this is old news by now, but I talked to a guy on site yesterday as work was being done to build an urban garden on the lot where the Lafayette Building used to live. You can read a short blog entry here.
Printable View
Not sure if this is old news by now, but I talked to a guy on site yesterday as work was being done to build an urban garden on the lot where the Lafayette Building used to live. You can read a short blog entry here.
Since a poorly maintained park full of bums is not ideal, I would rather they just pave it over as parking with some flower boxes along the sidewalk for now. It's just tacky having a veggie garden across from two hotels. Its sends the wrong message to visitors in my opinion.
I'm holding out hope they build it right and keep it maintained. I was told it was going to include displays of artwork,... so hopefully the end-result is an attractive, and unique, green space. We'll see...
Detroit doesn't have building codes?
Uh, and I think it was a little more than a leaky windows and bad shingles on the Layfayette.... If I were to let those leaky windows and bad shingles remain for 30+ years, I'm thinking demolition would likely be the only logical course of action.
Does it matter? Not sure why people make it seem like the gravitational pull of Detroit is any different from what it is in any other city.
But since you ask, yes I've seen abandoned buildings in Detroit be rehabbed. I can't think of any examples of vacant lots being developed... in Detroit or elsewhere.
Why should they? It's far easier [[and presumably cheaper!) to just demolish everything deemed "old", "obsolete", "crumbling", or "structurally unsound", as determined by casual self-proclaimed building experts.
Replace all that steel, concrete, and masonry with some good ole weed-filled or landscaped-and-lighted lots, and now you're talking some SERIOUS revitalization!
Well, the outrage should be directed at the incompetents that run the code enforcement that allow a building to slide to such a state that no private investor would touch it. Lets not forget that this and many other buildings in detroit stayed empty and derilict during the greatest expansion of wealth the world has ever seen. Think anything is going to be different during a depression that ...in michigan at least...is going to last just as long as the expansion?
The choice for the layfayette was not between demo now or rehab. It was between demo now or wait another 30 years for it to fall down.
yup...the Whitney was still open and there was more retail. Speaking of Kennedy Square.... what was there before that building went up?
Not to re-start a long-winded previous thread...
..but the options you present were determined by George Jackson. George is not qualified to determine these options. No effort to obtain objective, unbiased information and recommendations from licensed design professionals was ever attempted or made public. To even imply otherwise is a bald-faced lie.
But hey, Adamo made a million and a half bucks, damn near collapsed Michigan Avenue, and now Detroiters will get a fantastic new patch of weeds. What's the worry?
Since the Lafayette is gone, I'm still curious, for now do you guys prefer a traditional park [[given there's probably no need so close to Capitol Park or money to maintain it), a paved parking lot or garden?
No, the options were determined by the market. THERE WAS NO ONE WHO WOULD DEVELOP IT and the state was not then and certainly is not now or anytime in the remotely near future going to pony up hundreds of millions to incentivize the rehab. It languished in private ownership and crumbled after it was abandoned to the city.
I don't give a fuck if the building was still technically sound. that is irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact it was going to be empty for another generation. anyone saying otherwise is delusional.
I believe it was the old city hall. But that predates my birth by several decades, so I can't say for sure.
ETA: But anyway, call me when that much vaunted piece of real estate where the Hudson's building sat is finally developed. It's been sitting empty for almost as long as the Book Cadillac was abandoned.
The vacant brownfield where the Lafayette building stood will be fenced for corporate future development; like some 50 story glass coated skyscaper building. An Urban garden in the middle if Downtown Detroit may not happen anytime soon. Put it the ghetto where middle low-income folks can get their free meals.
People said that about the B-C, my friend. They said it for my entire lifetime. Revitalizing a hotel on Washington Boulevard was a losing proposition, they said. It will never happen...
You might be right. The optimists might be right. But both of you have ONE thing in common -- no one can predict the future. If you'd painted a picture of today's Detroit, traveled back in time and showed it to people in the 1950s -- or even better, the 1920s -- they would laugh you out of town.
In 30-40 years, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows what Detroit will be. We don't know if it will eventually be evacuated and abandoned, or whether it will experience growth. None of our opinions are facts, not even those we believe are reasonably informed. We can be confident of many of our short-term predictions, but forecasting the far future beyond expressing your hopes, dreams, and fears is a losing proposition.
Well, if the Book is a measure of success.... I'm think we should hold on the champagne. The condos had to be sold in a fire sale for half their original asking prices. The banks are circling. the developer already lost the Hilton Garden Inn. There are constant rumors about Westin pulling the flag. And Detroit's hotel market isn't exactly stellar. If the Book makes it, needs to be remembered that the deal came together because a whole lotta people and a whole lotta government money came together to make it happen. The deep pockets ...especially the government's, are tapped out. There are 40-some empty buildings in the CBD. Unless the future holds that oil is found beneath Detroit, they aren't all being redeveloped. That much I can be pretty certain of.
True. Look at the Book Caddy, the David Whitney, the Broderick, the Fort-Shelby Hotel, Madison Bldg, etc. All of the biggest projects Downtown recently have been rehabs. All the "prime development real estate" like the Hudson's site, Rivertown, the lots around Grand Circus, Tiger Stadium, pretty much every vacant lot downtown has not been developed after a demolition. Detroit is not going to be a huge new construction market for a LONG time, so why throw away the few assets we have [[old buildings) for redevelopment?
If I remember correctly, this is what happened.
They said they HAD to demolish the Lafayette building because it was unsightly, and was an eyesore for guests in the B-C. [[Of course, many of these people, had they had their way before, would have demoed the B-C too!)
To mollify resistance, they discussed plans for a PARK to be built on the site of the former Lafayette. Well, a "green space" is better than nothin', right?
Then they realized they didn't have any money budgeted for a park, so they said they'd just plant some stuff.
So now, apparently, without even resources to plant turf, they want to turn it over to "urban gardening," realizing this is another buzzword to mollify people.
So, apparently, it's gross to have an aging office building for these guests at the B-C, but it's cool to have this third-world-style garden with people growing cabbages and stuff downtown? Where is the downtown "community" that will tend to this garden? Wait until they realize that they'll have to fence it off to keep the community that does live down there [[homeless) out!
In short, this is all bullshit designed to mollify people, and it apparently has never been put on a budget, planned, tasked to any body or ANYTHING. In short, it reflects perfectly Detroit's plan for downtown: Demolish it. Anything you can say, do, scheme, lie or dissemble to get another demolition job downtown, say it. "Green space," "parks," "urban gardens" -- it's all crap.
And while I disagreed with the destruction of the Lafayette, what is "third world" about a veggie garden? Keep it to facts because you have good arguments, you just love putting in little unwarranted jabs at shit for no reason. I know you read the article where all your "who will run the scary garden" questions were answered.
Adamo needs to be chased out of the city. We can agree on that, I think.
Except that the Broderick has barely begun...and has done this fits and starts redevelopment thing for about 15 years... and the Whitney doesn't even have financing in place... and the madison building was supposed to be done 10 years ago...Post Bar ring a bell?
Why throw away assets? For the reasons noted below by DNerd... those "saviors" of the city at the B-C didn't want to explain to guests why they have to look out their 400 a night window and see a hulking mess for the next 30 years.
While the Broderick has been going in fits and starts, I think we can agree that there has been NO work done at places like Hudsons or the Statler site. I never said we were a booming economy, that was sort of my point. It seems like the main argument you have is that it's easier to be impatient. If the Madison is getting a high quality renovation now, why be mad it's not the Post Bar? If the Broderick has fucking yellow chutes on it for the first time in forever, why be mad it took so long? That's hardly an argument for tearing down viable buildings.
And my point is the same... we are not now, nor have we been, nor are we likely to be anytime soon in an economic environment that will support rehabbing buildings that have been left to elements for decades either. Either secure the buildings and maintain them in some fashion to prevent further decay, or tear them down. As the city has refused to hold property owners to account do the former [[or as a property owner itself held itself to that standard), the later is the inevitable result
I agree that they must be secured. But demolition is not inevitable. The city and DEGC make conscious choices not to hold owners accountable, because they are being pressured for big demo jobs by Adamo.
Well since the Lafayette Building was not an appropriate view for the Westin Book Cadillac, how can a vegetable garden seem appropriate? :confused:
Perhaps they should add something commensurate with such a fine establishment... rather than mere peasant fodder.... imagine monied people surrounded by all that expensive finery in a hotel... looking out on common laborers tilling the fields.... unthinkable! :eek:
I think that is convenient excuse. The city can not have one set of blight rules and level of enforcement for the CBD and another for everywhere else. They've tried that and lost. The city is too big and too broke to do anything to force anyone to maintain their property.
I think the big demo contracts for downtown should be redirected to the neighborhoods until further notice. We can have Adamo board up downtown windows, seal the buildings, and send the bill to the landlord, whatever state they may be in. Cities can do this when they establish that owners are creating blight by negligence. Hell, attach the bill to their property tax so they have to pay it. Then move out to 'hoods that really need the help. The infrastructure differences between downtown and most neighborhoods are really appalling.
The city can't have 2 separate sets of rules, but they can be creative about how they do things.
Hmmm. Nothing? I have a veggie garden in my backyard. I am simply trying to view this through the subjective prism of anxious city fathers who worry about perceptions of out-of-towners who visit our fair city. Old building=eyesore. People tending vegetables on a downtown parcel=??? Shouldn't the parcel be worth more? You can't fool those out-of-towners as easily as you fool the local yokels.
Easy now. You must admit that much of this discussion of why we demolish buildings over and over when it doesn't work hinges on SOMETHING OTHER THAN FACTS. Perceptions? Biases? Prejudices? Subjective evaluations? In fact, that's sort of the major point of my post. When the facts don't agree, something else is at work.
I don't think it's scary. I think it's STUPID. If you want to feed hungry Detroiters, which seems to be the reason for urban gardens going back 115 years or so to Mayor Pingree, PUT THE FUCKING GARDENS IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE PEOPLE NEED THE BASIC SERVICES THEY'RE NOT GETTING. This is a fig leaf, and a slapdash one at that.
Yeah. I agree. In fact, probably we agree on most stuff. I have an idea, instead of accusing me of a bad attitude, why don't you just roll out your personal, industrial-grade ball of salt when I start posting, 'kay? :)
Yeah sounds good haha it'll probably be a bong not a salt lick though
The Lafayette Building should have been mothballed. No question. For what it cost to tear it down, the entire building could have been cleared of debris and new windows installed. Solar powered lights could have been put in to light the building at night. The main entrance could have been well-sealed w/o the use of plywood boards. The whole building could have been made to look acceptable from the outside. In fact, for the million or so bucks spent on its demolition, the city could have paid a night watchman to guard the building for probably a decade. The City could have then aggressively marketed the building the same way Dan Gilbert is doing. But, all we get is lame-ass excuses and a demolition company flush with money. F That.
All that said, anything, and I mean ANYTHING!!!! is better than another parking lot. An "urban garden" or a even a giant concrete wall is better than another parking lot. Anyone who thinks a parking lot is better than a garden is insane. If tourists aren't fooled by a garden, what do you suppose they think of when they see that "downtown" is simply a sea of asphalt? What other city relegates their most valuable real estate to serving as a turd farm for cars? At least a garden or a park gives the impression that we have more respect for a premium piece of land than a parking lot. It AT LEAST makes it look like we've intended it to add some palpable quality to the urban environment for the people who might live, work, and visit this forsaken place.
Totally agree.
I guess so. But, in the framework of how the Laf fell, the proposed "park" was the "carrot" to mollify critics. I think that's part of why it leaves such a sour taste in my mouth. Also, the people who used the idea of a park as "greenwashing" for their demolition spree, then found no money for a park, fundamentally misunderstand something about urban gardens: A community usually comes together and uses vacant land for growing food, with cooperation from the city. The way they're proposing this is ass-backwards: We demolished it, now you good people come in and [[a) remediate the soil, [[b) build raised beds, [[c) purchase your own compost, [[d) probably travel downtown [[do enough people live there to take care of it?) and tend it for years, [[e) build fences so that the homeless don't eat your tomatoes, and [[f) then, pick the vegetables and drive them back to your out-of-downtown kitchen.
Um ... stupid? Yes, darn stupid. At least to my mind.
I am totally with you in that they definitely used "greenspace" as a ruse to demolish irreplaceable architecture and historic buildings. The whole thing is a F-ing charade to line the pockets of a few crooks.
However, now that what's done is done, anything beats a parking lot. I agree, though, that a downtown garden to produce food is total nonsense. Outside of personal rooftop gardens, agriculture does not belong in a city's central business district. Period. In the neighborhoods, fine, in North Corktown, surely, but not downtown. I would much rather see that space used as an open-air market, where vendors could sell fresh produce, not grow it. Set it up like Harmonie Park/Paradise Valley, except permit vendors to use the space. Throw in a few items of plant life to make it look park-like. I mean, how productive could a garden of that size even be? How much produce will it generate and how many people will it feed versus how much effort it will take to maintain it? It doesn't make any sense...
"That don't make no sense."
Thanks... wish I could say, "That's why they pay me the big bucks..." But, really, EM is soooo crowded these days that another market would help alleviate some of the congestion and stress of shopping there. With every "Kurt & Sue" from the 'burbs coming down to EM on Saturdays, it gets a little annoying. I welcome them with open arms, but I don't think the people with fanny packs and cameras understand that, for people in city, EM is our grocery store. I'll be trying to get all my shopping done in under an hour and folks are leisurely strolling around, drinking coffees and stopping to take pictures in front of the cucumber stand. I don't mind that people want to come down to EM just for the experience and to buy a bag of pistachios, but honestly, the congestion at EM has hit critical mass. I'd love an open-air market downtown to avoid all of that.
Why not have the lot empty, but put up a sign declaring it "George Jackson Square"?
Cool! Maybe they can provide some of the restaurants in the Westin with some produce in the summer time. Detroit needs to establish itself as a center of fresh local [[delicious!) food. More food yuppie tourists por favor!
I cannot say a veggie garden would be good at all, but a beautiful flower garden encompassing the whole lot with gravel walkways could be just what the lot needs till at some point it gets redeveloped.
I wouldn't dismiss one point that bailey has raised. Detroit's downtown grew up around a city with a peak population of 2 million. It's fair to question whether there is going to be enough demand in the reasonable future to utilize the existing amount of vacant building space. But where I think bailey is wrong is the belief that knocking down old buildings is better long-term than mothballing and letting them stand. Both approaches cost money. But I've never heard of any city that's had success turning buildings into parking lots. If bailey believes that a successful strategy, point out the examples of where that's worked. Everything we know about successful downtowns points to the damage done to the urban environment by knocking down buildings and replacing them with parking lots. Even greenspaces, like parks, don't always have a positive effect. Old buildings, even vacant, better maintain the urban fabric, while still allowing for the possibility of future development.
My concern with this proposed garden is the area it is going into. If they are going to grow food in it then I just pray that they are either completely replacing the soil or making sure that the plants are not taking root at all in the ground there. I would be very worried about contamination from the demolition getting into any plants from the soil and then getting into people if they ate them. My other concern is how the garden will be taken care of. Having it in such an open unprotected area leaves it open to theft, vandalism, and destruction. If they are growing crops there then I can bet that the homeless will see it as free food and strip the place bare. Yes I think it is a great idea to provide them with something nutritious to eat, but at the same time seeing it decimated by people who don't know what they are doing would be awful and heart breaking. I think we can all also agree that people in the area don't have a lot of respect for personal property [[ as seen in the numerous buildings being stripped of everything of value around Detroit and neighboring communities). A community garden is great, but as ironic as this may sound, I think it needs a barrier to keep the community out for its own good, otherwise it wont be around long.
"It is all opinion." You say it like it's a bad thing. In MY OPINION, I think the statements are pretty accurate, given the history. Just because in YOUR OPINION they don't reflect what is "truly happening," doesn't mean we can't disagree. All of the things that may be "truly happening" downtown sound great, but until I see them come to fruition, I go by history.
Almost always, drjeff. Raised beds.
Compuware to start work on community garden at old Lafayette Building site
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...=2011110609029Quote:
Compuware is spending about $500,000 on the half-acre site near Lafayette and Shelby in downtown Detroit, including hiring a gardener, putting in a fence and paved walkways, and readying the site for planting fruits and vegetables by mid-July.
Meanwhile, a related plan for the City of Detroit and Compuware to install a green roof on the top of the underground parking garage on the site of the old Hudson’s building has been delayed as the city tries to figure out what to do with drainage issues on the site.
So, I guess it will be fruits and veggies... let's see how it goes... If growing actual produce doesn't work out, I hope Compuware doesn't totally abandon the project. It can certainly be transitioned into something enjoyable and visually appealing without growing crops.
Wouldn't it have been easier just to put the garden on the roof of the Lafayette? It already had some nice trees.
For what feels like the 50th time I am not now, nor have I EVER advocated that knocking down old buildings is a BETTER long term strategy than mothballing. I am saying that the buildings WERE NOT, ARE NOT, going to be preserved, mothballed...whatever...for a future renovation.
Paging someone from the Vinton team.....or have they all been bannished for sharing too much about the realities involved in a large scale rehab in this town?
flix? Not a bad idea. Better that than a weed strewn lot while they try to figure out something else to do with it. Im always having some sort of idea about what could be done that would help people and the city at the same time.
It would be cool if there were a Lafayette Building on that site instead. Half a million for a garden to become Capitol Park South? I don't want to eat tomatoes grown downtown. Have you seen how glossy with oil the Ren Cen gets every few years? You'd have to powerwash those veggies. How about they drop a couple hundred thou to plant squash on Zug Island next?
Bailey, like I said, why not pressure the city to force landlords to mothball buildings? Obviously no one wanted to lose the Lafayette?
Here's what's making me crazy about this entire conversation: It's not like we're being offered the choice between a restored and resplendent Lafayette Building or an urban garden of glow-in-the-dark arsenic-matoes.
The building's gone. It sucks, and maybe it was or was not feasible to renovate it before it was knocked down, but we can't roll back time on that one. What we have now is a fenced-off mudpatch. Putting in an urban garden of edible or non-edibles improves the actual situation that we have. Even the ugliest urban garden/park is going to be better than what's there now.
As for the safety of what could be grown there--just about every one of these gardens throughout the city grows in raised beds of clean dirt. When the UCCA set up the Art Center Garden, they referred to some urban gardening organization's standards for soil testing and soil isolation [[putting in barriers between the clean and the polluted dirt so contaminants can't leach into the clean dirt). Not to mention, some plants can actually pull pollutants out of the soil and clean polluted sites that way.
I guess my problem is that nobody seems to realize what a downtown is for anymore. And nobody seems to understand what a community garden is. Detroit's dumb-ass leaders think all you have to do is spend money to make a community garden.
Where is the community?
Who asked them if they wanted it?
Is agriculture a good use for the congested district? Or just a fig leaf with no thought as to how to go about it?
But, Detroitnerd, a garden is hardly a permanent structure, or one that's hard to re-purpose later if demand for the space comes available.
I'm not saying that a vibrant downtown jam-packed full of jam-packed mixed use buildings isn't better than a garden. But right now, that's not an option on the table. The district isn't congested in the sense that Chicago, or Manhattan, or Boston are congested. There's a lot of buildings...many of which are empty and/or in disrepair. An empty lot, surrounded by a fence, full of mud adds to the blight. A nice garden lessens the blight--and, possibly, helps make the surrounding structures more appealing to those looking to invest in Detroit.
When the day comes that we actually need to add office/mixed-use space in Detroit, by all means, bulldoze Coney Gardens and put in something that's going to pay into the city taxes.
So why spend a-half-million dollars to build it? Detroit's business leaders know that nobody is going to build on the site in the foreseeable future, or else they wouldn't pony up the cash.
I agree with an earlier poster who suggested an open-air market there. What you'll wind up with is a vegetable garden surrounded with high fences topped with concertina wire to keep the hungry out. What kind of ridiculous message does that send?
Greenwashing is everywhere. Learn to detect it and don't believe the hype.
That's my entire point--nobody is going to build on that site in the foreseeable future. So, sure, put in a garden. Or, fine, an open-air market. Or a skate park. Personally, I rather liked the idea I saw on this forum a few months ago of an adult-sized kiddie park, with picnic tables, swings, and a hot-dog slide. Whatever, just do something other than leaving it as-is.Quote:
Detroit's business leaders know that nobody is going to build on the site in the foreseeable future
Bring in Smirnoff to sponsor it for Winter Blast?Quote:
Vodka ice luge!
I walked by here today and see that they have started constructing the garden. According to the sign, it's being called "Lafayette Greens." Maybe the gardeners know what those wooden posts are, but I don't have a clue. Could they be building this on a sort of elevated boardwalk to keep folks from helping themselves to a spud or radish before it's time?
Hey-oh! I could not agree more. See: Tech, Cass.
Haha. They're bringing in workmen and Bobcats for the job. Hey, there's real "community" gardening. Ho-ho-ho.
Walked by during lunch today - still lots of activity. They appear to be using some sort of stainless steel for the sides, also complete with irrigation.
Attachment 9993
Attachment 9992
Attachment 9991
I was by there the other day. I'm assuming they are for raised planting beds. As many have mentioned, the soil there is probably not fit for growing produce for human consumption.Quote:
I walked by here today and see that they have started constructing the garden. According to the sign, it's being called "Lafayette Greens." Maybe the gardeners know what those wooden posts are, but I don't have a clue. Could they be building this on a sort of elevated boardwalk to keep folks from helping themselves to a spud or radish before it's time?
There i way to much complaining about this. What would you rather have here, a giant vacant lot for Book visitors to see or a gorgeous urban garden? WHO CARE HOW IT'S BUILT. Let's get it built and beautify an eyesore lot downtown. This is a wonderful project, plain and simple.
Cares, not care. sorry about the typo above.
Yes, Detroit's number one priority should be creating smoke-and-mirrors illusions for the people who choose to stay at the Book-Cadillac. We would never want them to see the real Detroit. It's more important to create phony perceptions and media exposure than to address reality. I hear the Wizard of Oz is available for hire as a consultant.Screw the people who live, work, play, and pay taxes in Detroit--we all know that the only people who matter are hotel guests.
Did you ever stop to think that there wouldn't *be* an empty lot if the DEGC hadn't spent seven figures to tear down the Lafayette Building???
I'd like to add that Detroit looks EXACTLY the way it does because of an attitude of "Who Cares How It's Built?". Ask GM how much money they sunk into the RenCen to fix a product of that line of thinking.
In the photos above, the community sure looks like he's been working hard! :rolleyes:
gp...this IS the real Detroit, live in the moment. If it's happening, and I can watch it happen, it's real.
Do you think the CBD of any city would be the locale of an actual community garden? People need to change their expectations every once in a while. Downtowns will be run by local elites. Neighborhoods breed social activism. That's how cities usually work. Just because the elites build a garden doesn't mean we have to complain about how fake everything always is. This is not worse than what WSU did at Warren and Woodward.
Empty lot...Empty, unsecured, crumbling, graffiti-ed, windowless, derelict building. potato....potahto. It's not like the "seven figures" would have been spent on securing or shoring up the building in any way. Detroit gets the urban development it deserves because it elects thieves, buffoons, and grifters who then appoint more thieves, buffoons and grifters to run things. given the choice between hulking wreck and garden... and that was the choice....I'll take the garden.Quote:
Did you ever stop to think that there wouldn't *be* an empty lot if the DEGC hadn't spent seven figures to tear down the Lafayette Building???
I don't think Detroit was hurt by the mentality of who cares who builds an urban garden. Complaining about this shows how some people will whine about everything. Yes it was sad that the Lafayette came down, but it did. Now we need to look at that spot and see what can be done with it. Downtown doesn't need a new building built, we should focus on redeveloping our current vacant structures. So besides a vacant gravel lot, the Lafayette's space does not have alot of options. This is a great choice. It beautifies a space and embraces the urban farming movement in a high profile location. If you've been to Boston, they have a "victory garden" left from WWI right by the commons. It's gorgeous and a popular site in the city. Lots that embrace gardening can have a positive impact on their surroundings that a vacant gravel lot just cant. Yes it's sad that the building came down, but opposing any development on the site as some sort of protest to its demolition is foolish.
From looking at the artists depiction on the sign it looks like it's going to be more of an English style garden space with hedges, walking paths and some other shrubbery. Seems like it would dress up an empty lot.